Every once in a while I visit Overheard In Law School. So far, to my great relief, I haven’t read anything familiar there, meaning as far as I can tell, none of the embarrasing comments were mine. But there’s always next semester I fear! Anyway, the posts are often funny, but sometimes I wonder if I would have thought that if I had heard them in context. And others are just sort of cringe inducing, highlighting the same heteronormative, jocular sexism that I remember hating in law school. Here are some examples of what I mean:
*Now the defendants have heard that their medication is causing praipism. That’s like in the Viagra and cialis commercials when they say,”If you’ve had an erection for more than four hoursâ€¦”This is a serious condition. Any man knows how hard it would be to try to pee standing on your head.
*Eccentric Torts professor to frightened 1L class, while on a tangent about rape: Eccentric Torts professor: “Because it’s so utterly dull to go through the game of romance, am I right guys? All men know that candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker.”
Do the students and law profs who see their words above high five each other for being so clever? I don’t know what the point of that blog is, or how accurate or honest the posts are. For all the accusations of censoriousness thrown at feminists in legal academia, “Overheard” sure makes it seem like people feel free to say whatever they like, effect on the audience be damned.